Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful transparency beyond that by stating suggestions 'never assign work or grant access' and that the agent must 'cite the actual question source and obtain the responsible person's decision before creating an assignment.' It also explains the synonomy behavior for legal/juridique/recht. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences efficiently cover edge cases and safety boundaries. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: the candidate source, the matching requirement, synonym handling, unassigned cases, and the no-assignment guarantee. It could be more explicit about the exact shape of the returned suggestions, but the core behavior is sufficiently covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, with projectId documented but requiredExpertise not. The description compensates by explaining expertise semantics: 'Legal/juridique/recht are the same expertise' and that 'Empty, unknown or ambiguous requirements remain unassigned.' This adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema for the undocumented parameter, though it does not provide concrete value examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest current workspace members matching every required expertise for an accessible dossier.' This is clear and unambiguous, and the added boundary 'Suggestions never assign work or grant access' helps distinguish it from assignment-like tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling suggestion tools such as helvabase_answer_suggestions or helvabase_propose_document_plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case: when you need member suggestions for required expertise in an accessible dossier. It also warns that empty, unknown, or ambiguous requirements remain unassigned, which gives some operational context. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.